The figures in the Con Home survey just look and feel as they they have no underlying meaning at all. No trend, no direction. They look like computer generated random numbers.
And some of the names are so obscure it is hard to believe even members have ever heard of them, or truly know anything about them.
Just had a look at UC stats since January 2020. Across GB the caseload has roughly doubled (108%) to October 2021.
London 147%, North East England only 75%.
I'd suggest the £20 cut to UC will have hit the south far harder than elsewhere due to the number of people newly claiming UC down there, and the London-based media hasn't picked up on this difference.
I think Tees valley (etc) will remain Tory at the next election based on this and other news like the plant at Sunderland.
Nissan in Sunderland won't generate that many jobs at all (let alone in the Tees Valley). And if you are concerned about that sort of work I would pay a lot more attention to Hitachi whose order book is currently bare for 2023.
For Tees Valley pay more attention to chemicals (see BP's announcement yesterday) and what work comes from the Freeport.
As for Tees Valley seats the ones likely to be lost is Redcar and (to a less extent) Hartlepool as they really aren't see much investment relative to elsewhere.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
I agree, that said the leading indicators like wastewater sampling don't look good.
Right now it would be sensible to assume that moribidity is about the same until we know otherwise, and that transmissibility is likely a bit higher than current delta if only because vaccines are likely to be less effective. Anything beyond that is either speculative or inferred from too little data.
Doesn't the wastewater sampling mean that Omicron is widespread in SA?
Yes it looks quite like the Delta outbreak from earlier in the year, but it is a leading indicator, so tests, hospitalisation, and deaths will rise afterwards.
It presumably can't be that much of a leading indicator ahead of tests. Perhaps 3-4 days max, before symptoms appear (or less if pre-symptomatic people are being surge tested)?
Just had a look at UC stats since January 2020. Across GB the caseload has roughly doubled (108%) to October 2021.
London 147%, North East England only 75%.
I'd suggest the £20 cut to UC will have hit the south far harder than elsewhere due to the number of people newly claiming UC down there, and the London-based media hasn't picked up on this difference.
I think Tees valley (etc) will remain Tory at the next election based on this and other news like the plant at Sunderland.
Nissan in Sunderland won't generate that many jobs at all (let alone in the Tees Valley). And if you are concerned about that sort of work I would pay a lot more attention to Hitachi whose order book is currently bare for 2023.
For Tees Valley pay more attention to chemicals (see BP's announcement yesterday) and what work comes from the Freeport.
As for Tees Valley seats the ones likely to be lost is Redcar and (to a less extent) Hartlepool as they really aren't see much investment relative to elsewhere.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
I agree, that said the leading indicators like wastewater sampling don't look good.
Right now it would be sensible to assume that moribidity is about the same until we know otherwise, and that transmissibility is likely a bit higher than current delta if only because vaccines are likely to be less effective. Anything beyond that is either speculative or inferred from too little data.
Doesn't the wastewater sampling mean that Omicron is widespread in SA?
Yes it looks quite like the Delta outbreak from earlier in the year, but it is a leading indicator, so tests, hospitalisation, and deaths will rise afterwards.
It presumably can't be that much of a leading indicator ahead of tests. Perhaps 3-4 days max, before symptoms appear (or less if pre-symptomatic people are being surge tested)?
You are right, but wastewater is the thing that shows outbreaks first and it covers most of the population in an area, including the asymptomatic and those that never get tested for whatever reason. So it's a good measure of the amount of virus that people are carrying.
I know the likes of @Leon consider me a delusional optimist, and maybe I am. But the one thing that keeps nagging in my mind is that the South Africans themselves seem pretty relaxed about Omicron – and they weren't about Delta.
Mr. Thompson, while it's true the TV stuff from the Sussexes is after they left royal duties that does neglect the fact that the reason they left was because royal duties prevented them from doing so (they wanted to do both).
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
I agree, that said the leading indicators like wastewater sampling don't look good.
Right now it would be sensible to assume that moribidity is about the same until we know otherwise, and that transmissibility is likely a bit higher than current delta if only because vaccines are likely to be less effective. Anything beyond that is either speculative or inferred from too little data.
Doesn't the wastewater sampling mean that Omicron is widespread in SA?
Thats my take, and that is good news, as the apocalypse hasn't happened.
My guesstimate is that South Africa has a health care divide simpler to some countries in South America - the Rich get America style, the middle class gets a fair amount and the poor get basic plus some charity.
In which case, the case numbers are pointless.
The wastewater sampling would produce something closer to reality.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
I agree, that said the leading indicators like wastewater sampling don't look good.
Right now it would be sensible to assume that moribidity is about the same until we know otherwise, and that transmissibility is likely a bit higher than current delta if only because vaccines are likely to be less effective. Anything beyond that is either speculative or inferred from too little data.
Doesn't the wastewater sampling mean that Omicron is widespread in SA?
Yes it looks quite like the Delta outbreak from earlier in the year, but it is a leading indicator, so tests, hospitalisation, and deaths will rise afterwards.
It presumably can't be that much of a leading indicator ahead of tests. Perhaps 3-4 days max, before symptoms appear (or less if pre-symptomatic people are being surge tested)?
You are right, but wastewater is the thing that shows outbreaks first and it covers most of the population in an area, including the asymptomatic and those that never get tested for whatever reason. So it's a good measure of the amount of virus that people are carrying.
Isn't that the OP's point though? That it's widespread already and has been around a while, and (so far!) the dog has not barked?
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
What offence do you think he is guilty of here? Or do you think it is unwise of him to get involved with any sort of business at all? Even the help-an-entrepreneur scheme backed by KPMG?
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
Isn’t the issue that Prince Andrew is essentially being bankrolled by some dodgy businessman?
The royals must be above this thing, and sadly Andrew has forfeited his royal privilege.
Charles and William have a massive job righting the ship.
Given what we know about the funding of Charles's charities, Charles is as guilty of Andrew of really unwise stupid behaviour. His behaviour is worse because he is heir to the throne. Andrew is a nothing.
The Sussexes too are irrelevant. But they are milking their royal status for money with TV companies.
None of them, frankly, are behaving well. I am a little tired of the assumption that in the family only Andrew has behaved badly, that's all
As for Dorries, it is the fact that she appears to be an ignorant and ineffective Minister which is my problem - not that she writes best-selling novels. I am a fan of what some will call low brow novels and think Pinter is a bit overrated, frankly. A very long period of silence is the best response to him.
But the arts and culture, sport and media are really important sectors of our national life and deserve a first rate Minister.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
Why should modern Brits be penalised for the failing of America? I forget the stats, but IIRC a very large proportion of slaves overall and especially slaves to the US were traded after the UK banned the slave trade.
Moreover current societal issues in the US have a lot to do with their failure to address their issues proactively
This is not to suggest, of course, that the British involvement in the slave trade was anything but abhorrent.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
It is very early, but I just think of Northern Italy in Feb 2020 and the ambulances.
Omicron would have been in SA for at leat 6 weeks and there does not seem to be any sign of a similar happening.
I predict that the Winnie-The-Pooh variant will cause +-1,000,000,000 excess deaths in the UK, before Christmas
Yes, let's be sure: as well as interpreting the SA results, we will see the outcomes of enough diagnosed Omicron cases in the West in the next few weeks to make an assessment and either tighten further or loosen and ask everyone to fill their boots to the brim with Omicron once it becomes dominant here. Or something in between
I am predicting that either Omicron is non-lethal that it cause the dead to rise in a Zombie Apocalypse *and* that it so lethal that the estate of Alistair MacLean sues over infringement of the intellectual property rights (see the Satan Bug).
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
I don't think I had to say anything I didn't believe in my vows. Said Amen a few times in the service, of course. The vicar is aware of my lack of belief (that was important to me).
Baptism was trickier, as I had to commit to bringing the children up in the family of God etc, but I'm subcontracting that to my wife. They know our differences in belief.
My wife also not a churchgoer, massive hypocrite, I'd say
Anyway, massive tangent so I'll stop now.
You could have opted for the "Blessing"; that's what it is there for .
Intrigued by this - surely just as hypocritical on my part (if I was hypocritical) to ask for God's blessing after the event?
The figures in the Con Home survey just look and feel as they they have no underlying meaning at all. No trend, no direction. They look like computer generated random numbers.
And some of the names are so obscure it is hard to believe even members have ever heard of them, or truly know anything about them.
I can remember when, on OB, ConHome polls were ranked as lower than web polls conducted by the Daily Mirror/Mail
I guess any poll that tells you what you want to hear is gold standard....
Carrie gets binned off/scarpers. More financial shenanigans. N.O.M. at next GE. Javid launches a leadership bid that fails Hancock back in the cabinet as NI Secretary as punishment Shapps starts wearing a poppy in July Mad Nad will be back on the backbenches Sunak finally grows into those size 3 Crocs he's been keeping
If you truly wished him ill, you'd be going for a majority of four, and Carrie still calling the shots.
Majority of 12… let him have hope… for a while… and then a growing sense of despair as reality dawns
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
What offence do you think he is guilty of here? Or do you think it is unwise of him to get involved with any sort of business at all? Even the help-an-entrepreneur scheme backed by KPMG?
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
Isn’t the issue that Prince Andrew is essentially being bankrolled by some dodgy businessman?
The royals must be above this thing, and sadly Andrew has forfeited his royal privilege.
Charles and William have a massive job righting the ship.
Given what we know about the funding of Charles's charities, Charles is as guilty of Andrew of really unwise stupid behaviour. His behaviour is worse because he is heir to the throne. Andrew is a nothing.
The Sussexes too are irrelevant. But they are milking their royal status for money with TV companies.
None of them, frankly, are behaving well. I am a little tired of the assumption that in the family only Andrew has behaved badly, that's all
As for Dorries, it is the fact that she appears to be an ignorant and ineffective Minister which is my problem - not that she writes best-selling novels. I am a fan of what some will call low brow novels and think Pinter is a bit overrated, frankly. A very long period of silence is the best response to him.
But the arts and culture, sport and media are really important sectors of our national life and deserve a first rate Minister.
I think the difference is that it’s Andrew’s lifestyle that is being funded, not his charities.
One former Cabinet minister told me Liz Truss' leadership pitch to the Tory party "is to say freedom as much as possible and look like Margaret Thatcher as much as possible"
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
Morning all, I'm tail end Charlie on the SKS reshuffle but I'm keen to comment on it because I think it's a watershed. There's no longer a shadow of a doubt about Labour's direction. It's back to the centre, ideology is out, profile & pragmatism is in. The dalliance with left radicalism is over - inevitable imo after such a drubbing at the polls. Jeremy Corbyn was a poor leader and by the last election had become a liability. Some of the policies were excellent but others had a retro feel and ‘retro’ is the word I’d use to describe the Corbyn era if allowed only one. Fine for clothes and music - who doesn’t like bell bottom flares and Alright Now by Free – but for progressive politics not so much.
I do feel wistful about it though. I liked certain aspects of how the party changed after 2015, in particular how we stopped being scared to propose big transformational changes to the benefit of those without privilege and the consternation of those with a vested interest in retaining theirs. The only thing worse than losing to the Tories is to stand on a timid platform and still lose to the Tories. 2015 was worse for me than 2019 was and 2017 was fabulous. I hope another 2015 is not where we’re heading. That would be just too sad. It would also mean years more of Boris Johnson and that’s beyond sad.
Another 1987 or 1992 would be grim too imo. I’ve no interest in Starmer being Kinnock - rolling the pitch for Streeting as Blair to end 18 years of Tory rule in 2028 - his mission has to be replacing Johnson as PM at the next election. The bloke has to go. I rank this above being radical so who cares, quite frankly, about whether I feel ‘wistful’ about the quenching of the socialist flame? I certainly don’t. I don’t give a toss that I’m feeling wistful. The only question of importance is does this reshuffle improve the quality of the Labour front bench and therefore the chances of ‘taxi for Johnson’ come the election? I think it does. So I’m happy. Go Keir.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
The pastorate in the CofE have beliefs nearly as varied as the congregation.
I remember being amused at the Bishop who professed to believe in God, but not that Jesus was the Son of God.
Someone got very bent out of shape when I pointed out that this meant that the CoE had appointed a Jewish Bishop...
Who got bent out of shape about that?
Unless I've missed something, 12 out of 12 Apostles are Jewish.
As was, for example, the Rt Rev High Montefiore, former CofE Bishop of Birmingham in the 1980s.
I remember getting tied up in the David Jenkins debates. Quite a lot of fun.
Isn't that the OP's point though? That it's widespread already and has been around a while, and (so far!) the dog has not barked?
Widespread does not mean peaked, it is still early days for South Africa, but the outbreak does seem to be following a similar trajectory to Delta.
Yes, but that wasn't the point. I think the OP's point was that that it's been widespread enough for long enough to see some outcomes, and on that front the dog has not barked.
I am not saying this is the correct analysis, merely outlining the point that was being made (which was nothing to with peaks in cases whatsoever).
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
The pastorate in the CofE have beliefs nearly as varied as the congregation.
The CoE is endearingly open-minded and almost nobody finds it offensive but it's not exactly seen as a coherent religious entity - only 3% of young people declare it as their religion of choice. It's more a systemic default, which people who don't really believe in much can turn to in order to give a spiritual dimension to births, marriages and deaths. It's a bit like (I imagine) accepting an MBE if you're a republican - you aren't thereby endorsing the system, merely accepting the honour from the people who currently issue such things.
I got married in a chapel because my wife wanted it and St Mary Undercroft in the Commons is such a lovely place. God can sue me if he wants to.
I know the likes of @Leon consider me a delusional optimist, and maybe I am. But the one thing that keeps nagging in my mind is that the South Africans themselves seem pretty relaxed about Omicron – and they weren't about Delta.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
The pastorate in the CofE have beliefs nearly as varied as the congregation.
I remember being amused at the Bishop who professed to believe in God, but not that Jesus was the Son of God.
Someone got very bent out of shape when I pointed out that this meant that the CoE had appointed a Jewish Bishop...
Who got bent out of shape about that? Silly fool. A total non-issue.
Unless I've missed something, 12 out of 12 Apostles are Jewish.
As was, for example, the Rt Rev High Montefiore, former CofE Bishop of Birmingham in the 1980s.
I remember getting tied up in the David Jenkins debates. Quite a lot of fun.
13 out of 13 Apostles :-)
Also the chippie himself.
My point was that it showed progress in the liberalisation of Christianity in the UK
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
What offence do you think he is guilty of here? Or do you think it is unwise of him to get involved with any sort of business at all? Even the help-an-entrepreneur scheme backed by KPMG?
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
Isn’t the issue that Prince Andrew is essentially being bankrolled by some dodgy businessman?
The royals must be above this thing, and sadly Andrew has forfeited his royal privilege.
Charles and William have a massive job righting the ship.
Given what we know about the funding of Charles's charities, Charles is as guilty of Andrew of really unwise stupid behaviour. His behaviour is worse because he is heir to the throne. Andrew is a nothing.
The Sussexes too are irrelevant. But they are milking their royal status for money with TV companies.
None of them, frankly, are behaving well. I am a little tired of the assumption that in the family only Andrew has behaved badly, that's all
As for Dorries, it is the fact that she appears to be an ignorant and ineffective Minister which is my problem - not that she writes best-selling novels. I am a fan of what some will call low brow novels and think Pinter is a bit overrated, frankly. A very long period of silence is the best response to him.
But the arts and culture, sport and media are really important sectors of our national life and deserve a first rate Minister.
I think the difference is that it’s Andrew’s lifestyle that is being funded, not his charities.
A difference without a distinction to my mind. Charles is frankly abusing his position by allowing his staff to sell access to him. The fact that it was in return for donations to his charities does not improve matters to my mind.
Dubious people were using the royals to launder their reputation.
Charles should have known - or been advised - better.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I was struggling with agnosticism so I went to see the vicar to discuss how to handle our family baptisms. Turned out he was an even bigger agnostic than I was. I've been a devout atheist ever since.
Currently reading 'England, Arise" by Juliet Barker, about the 1381 revolts. Lots of back story about the wealth of the church and so on. Reformation was a long time coming.
I'm currently rereading _The Stripping of the Altars_ by Eamon Duffy, which I think is very good on what was swept away in the Reformation from the point of view of the average lay person of the time -- the ritual, beliefs and practices that had been the experience of traditional Christian religion for generations up to that point.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
The pastorate in the CofE have beliefs nearly as varied as the congregation.
A perfectly internally consistent reason for the church marrying atheists is that it gives the church the opportunity to convince atheists to think again. It probably doesn't happen often. But it certainly happens occasionally. Which is probably enough to justify it.
Makes no odds to me: I'm an atheist who married in a secular venue and who is vaguely uncomfortable in a church.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
The pastorate in the CofE have beliefs nearly as varied as the congregation.
The CoE is endearingly open-minded and almost nobody finds it offensive but it's not exactly seen as a coherent religious entity - only 3% of young people declare it as their religion of choice. It's more a systemic default, which people who don't really believe in much can turn to in order to give a spiritual dimension to births, marriages and deaths. It's a bit like (I imagine) accepting an MBE if you're a republican - you aren't thereby endorsing the system, merely accepting the honour from the people who currently issue such things.
I got married in a chapel because my wife wanted it and St Mary Undercroft in the Commons is such a lovely place. God can sue me if he wants to.
No risk from being sued by God. The Devil has all the lawyers.....
Might work. Once the membership realise how far away from Thatcher that Johnson really is (i.e. crap at detail and workload, no vision, no strategy, isn't a conservative etc etc) they may be looking for a rapid swing back.
I know the likes of @Leon consider me a delusional optimist, and maybe I am. But the one thing that keeps nagging in my mind is that the South Africans themselves seem pretty relaxed about Omicron – and they weren't about Delta.
And they have not enforced any form of lockdown
Well exactly. And SA lockdowns have been pretty severe in the past!
I know the likes of @Leon consider me a delusional optimist, and maybe I am. But the one thing that keeps nagging in my mind is that the South Africans themselves seem pretty relaxed about Omicron – and they weren't about Delta.
Morning all, I'm tail end Charlie on the SKS reshuffle but I'm keen to comment on it because I think it's a watershed. There's no longer a shadow of a doubt about Labour's direction. It's back to the centre, ideology is out, profile & pragmatism is in. The dalliance with left radicalism is over - inevitable imo after such a drubbing at the polls. Jeremy Corbyn was a poor leader and by the last election had become a liability. Some of the policies were excellent but others had a retro feel and ‘retro’ is the word I’d use to describe the Corbyn era if allowed only one. Fine for clothes and music - who doesn’t like bell bottom flares and Alright Now by Free – but for progressive politics not so much.
I do feel wistful about it though. I liked certain aspects of how the party changed after 2015, in particular how we stopped being scared to propose big transformational changes to the benefit of those without privilege and the consternation of those with a vested interest in retaining theirs. The only thing worse than losing to the Tories is to stand on a timid platform and still lose to the Tories. 2015 was worse for me than 2019 was and 2017 was fabulous. I hope another 2015 is not where we’re heading. That would be just too sad. It would also mean years more of Boris Johnson and that’s beyond sad.
Another 1987 or 1992 would be grim too imo. I’ve no interest in Starmer being Kinnock - rolling the pitch for Streeting as Blair to end 18 years of Tory rule in 2028 - his mission has to be replacing Johnson as PM at the next election. The bloke has to go. I rank this above being radical so who cares, quite frankly, about whether I feel ‘wistful’ about the quenching of the socialist flame? I certainly don’t. I don’t give a toss that I’m feeling wistful. The only question of importance is does this reshuffle improve the quality of the Labour front bench and therefore the chances of ‘taxi for Johnson’ come the election? I think it does. So I’m happy. Go Keir.
It was a good reshuffle. And shows serious intent. As I posted yesterday next GE will be a lot closer than some think imho.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
Just be grateful HYUFD was never elevated to the ministry.
Politics For All @PoliticsForAlI BREAKING: Boris Johnson press conference on Coronavirus today
===
Why aren't you locking us down? How can we possibly have xmas now? When you say 'don't panic' doesn't that show that we should panic?
etc etc...
I just filled up with fuel and got a telling off for not wearing a mask when paying in the shop (I had a voucher so didn't pay at pump). I have to say, I really couldn't give a ****.
What a rebel you are! This is how revolutionary change starts, with minor law-breaking. 'Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your masks'.
It's very interesting, and not insignificant, I think, that so many rightwing anti-vax movements at the moment have a revolutionary undertone. Nature abhors a vacuum of political ideas.
Isn't that the OP's point though? That it's widespread already and has been around a while, and (so far!) the dog has not barked?
Widespread does not mean peaked, it is still early days for South Africa, but the outbreak does seem to be following a similar trajectory to Delta.
Yes, but that wasn't the point. I think the OP's point was that that it's been widespread enough for long enough to see some outcomes, and on that front the dog has not barked.
I am not saying this is the correct analysis, merely outlining the point that was being made (which was nothing to with peaks in cases whatsoever).
It's not a correct analysis, as Omicron is simply too new to draw any conclusion about disease, all we can really see in the data right now is that it is becoming ever more widespread and appears to be highly transmissible. Anything else will need to wait for more data. I can't see any reason for people to jump to the conclusion that it's less malign, that looks like wishful thinking to me.
Makes no difference to me as I have not stopped wearing a mask in shops and don't use public transport. Anecdotally in the campus shop everyone was wearing a mask (most students haven't been) but it was at 8.15, so they were mostly still in bed...
I concede that it is going a bit far to wear a mask in bed. Even a bed in the campus shop.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
What offence do you think he is guilty of here? Or do you think it is unwise of him to get involved with any sort of business at all? Even the help-an-entrepreneur scheme backed by KPMG?
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
Isn’t the issue that Prince Andrew is essentially being bankrolled by some dodgy businessman?
The royals must be above this thing, and sadly Andrew has forfeited his royal privilege.
Charles and William have a massive job righting the ship.
Seems Cameron's a magnet to the dodgy stuff..
From Guardian 2010 -
"In a little more than a year he donated almost £2.8m, making him the Tories' largest benefactor. Exactly why a man who had not shown much interest in the party for at least a decade became an enthusiastic supporter remains a mystery.
I know the likes of @Leon consider me a delusional optimist, and maybe I am. But the one thing that keeps nagging in my mind is that the South Africans themselves seem pretty relaxed about Omicron – and they weren't about Delta.
And they have not enforced any form of lockdown
Biden says 'no need to panic'.
But he also says 'keep wearing masks'. And much of urban America seems to be permamasked. America's baseline level of not-panicking seems somewhat more panicky than ours. Obviously there are also parts of America where a little more panicking might be sensible.
Boris needs to send out a calming message in his address today – there's a lot of panicking going on, and it's extremely damaging for people's mental health. Biden did well yesterday – need some of that here.
‘Boris Johnson’s government is actively eroding the power of our democratically elected Scottish Parliament.’ In fact, the Tories were waging an ‘assault on the Scottish Parliament’.
Now, that’s more like it. When did all this good stuff start happening?
Alas, this version of the UK Government exists entirely in the fevered imaginings of Scottish nationalists, which is why it got such an airing in Sturgeon’s speech.
Just had a look at UC stats since January 2020. Across GB the caseload has roughly doubled (108%) to October 2021.
London 147%, North East England only 75%.
I'd suggest the £20 cut to UC will have hit the south far harder than elsewhere due to the number of people newly claiming UC down there, and the London-based media hasn't picked up on this difference.
I think Tees valley (etc) will remain Tory at the next election based on this and other news like the plant at Sunderland.
Nissan in Sunderland won't generate that many jobs at all (let alone in the Tees Valley). And if you are concerned about that sort of work I would pay a lot more attention to Hitachi whose order book is currently bare for 2023.
For Tees Valley pay more attention to chemicals (see BP's announcement yesterday) and what work comes from the Freeport.
As for Tees Valley seats the ones likely to be lost is Redcar and (to a less extent) Hartlepool as they really aren't see much investment relative to elsewhere.
The etc was to represent various red wall seats.
My point is that announcements may not equal more jobs at the end of the day.
My prediction is we will all get it, but it will be pretty much harmless unless you’re un-vaxxed.
A special booster will be available in about 6 months.
Yes, I think that was essentially the OP's point – succinctly put by you.
I am haunted at times like this by what the lung consultant told me a few years back - "it's essential you avoid any more lung infections".
I really do not want to catch this. Even flu or bronchitis causes my lungs further damage, damage which cannot be repaired.
So I am glad I've been triply vaccinated. As is my husband. I'm urging my children to get the 3rd jab as soon as possible. And I'm resigning myself to a more constrained life than I had hoped for even a few weeks back for the immediate future, until we know more.
Fortunately I can use the time to make plans for the garden and other stuff. And I can generally cope with solitariness. But I can't say it fills me with joy and it can get bloody hard at times. If this new variant means we have to go through the last 2 years all over again, I'm not at all sure I will be able to cope with that, to be perfectly honest.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
Just be grateful HYUFD was never elevated to the ministry.
Yet. It's a popular lateish life career change.
Some - Chris Bryant MP - move in the other direction.
Isn't that the OP's point though? That it's widespread already and has been around a while, and (so far!) the dog has not barked?
Widespread does not mean peaked, it is still early days for South Africa, but the outbreak does seem to be following a similar trajectory to Delta.
Yes, but that wasn't the point. I think the OP's point was that that it's been widespread enough for long enough to see some outcomes, and on that front the dog has not barked.
I am not saying this is the correct analysis, merely outlining the point that was being made (which was nothing to with peaks in cases whatsoever).
It's not a correct analysis, as Omicron is simply too new to draw any conclusion about disease, all we can really see in the data right now is that it is becoming ever more widespread and appears to be highly transmissible. Anything else will need to wait for more data. I can't see any reason for people to jump to the conclusion that it's less malign, that looks like wishful thinking to me.
As I say, I'm not saying that the analysis is correct – simply that that was the thrust of the discussion and you got the wrong end of the stick with your point about peaks.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Mr. Thompson, while it's true the TV stuff from the Sussexes is after they left royal duties that does neglect the fact that the reason they left was because royal duties prevented them from doing so (they wanted to do both).
It doesn't neglect anything.
If Andrew had stepped down from royal duties in order to spend more time with Monte Carlo bankers and Epstein then that would have been his prerogative, but he didn't.
If he wanted to be a private individual he could have been, but instead as a serving British royal he was seeking to exploit royal relations with Prince Albert to curry favour for businessmen he had a financial vested interest in.
Stepping down and dealing with TV isn't the problem, the problem is not stepping down first.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
Just be grateful HYUFD was never elevated to the ministry.
Yet. It's a popular lateish life career change.
Some - Chris Bryant MP - move in the other direction.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Is that some sort of joke, as I'm afraid I don't get it. You certainly couldn't play pop songs in any church worth it's salt.
Just had a look at UC stats since January 2020. Across GB the caseload has roughly doubled (108%) to October 2021.
London 147%, North East England only 75%.
I'd suggest the £20 cut to UC will have hit the south far harder than elsewhere due to the number of people newly claiming UC down there, and the London-based media hasn't picked up on this difference.
I think Tees valley (etc) will remain Tory at the next election based on this and other news like the plant at Sunderland.
Nissan in Sunderland won't generate that many jobs at all (let alone in the Tees Valley). And if you are concerned about that sort of work I would pay a lot more attention to Hitachi whose order book is currently bare for 2023.
For Tees Valley pay more attention to chemicals (see BP's announcement yesterday) and what work comes from the Freeport.
As for Tees Valley seats the ones likely to be lost is Redcar and (to a less extent) Hartlepool as they really aren't see much investment relative to elsewhere.
The etc was to represent various red wall seats.
My point is that announcements may not equal more jobs at the end of the day.
Nissan Sunderland doesn't need to create jobs as such. I just needs to survive.
It has become an iconic fortress in the Brexit war, the last redoubt to be defended at all costs. The Stalingrad, or Verdun, of Brexit. Legend has it that if the ravens/barbary apes ever leave the Sunderland plant, Brexit will fall.
...The word “pogrom”…entered the international lexicon in the 1880s. By the early 1920s, it had become so familiar that a champion racehorse in Britain was named Pogrom; it won the 1922 Epsom Oaks and the Coronation Stakes....
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Charlie does show occasional glimmers of membership of the human race, his brothers not so much. The cynic in me thinks that they're well advised and realise that the continuation of 'the Firm' means that they get with the programme. See also young bawheid's conversion to the green agenda.
Aren't the speeches on such occasions written for them? With considerable input from the relevant Ministers and, probably, also the Barbados government?
Technically I believe he gave the speech after the monarchy had ended so he was just the visiting representative of the head of a friendly state. I guess the Barbadians would have seen a draft as a courtesy but not had much input
Carrie gets binned off/scarpers. More financial shenanigans. N.O.M. at next GE. Javid launches a leadership bid that fails Hancock back in the cabinet as NI Secretary as punishment Shapps starts wearing a poppy in July Mad Nad will be back on the backbenches Sunak finally grows into those size 3 Crocs he's been keeping
If you truly wished him ill, you'd be going for a majority of four, and Carrie still calling the shots.
Majority of 12… let him have hope… for a while… and then a growing sense of despair as reality dawns
Whimsical cruelty- I like it.
I wonder how low the majority would have to go before a GE win was more of a punishment than a prize? John Major made a majority of 21 more-or-less work for five years (albeit it was ugly at times and the cost was massive in 1997), but he was a subtler operator than BoJo.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
Boris needs to send out a calming message in his address today – there's a lot of panicking going on, and it's extremely damaging for people's mental health. Biden did well yesterday – need some of that here.
Perhaps he could do an impression of a steam train and then witter on about going to see Thomas the Tank Engine? That would do the trick.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
That's right – certainly was at my atheist wedding in England 15 years or so ago. No 'religious element' at all is or was the law, and that included pop songs that even mentioned God, as you say. It was strictly enforced – the registrar had to check our playlist!
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Is that some sort of joke, as I'm afraid I don't get it. You certainly couldn't play pop songs in any church worth it's salt.
Not a joke, but perhaps I explained it badly. You either have to get married in a church - in which case you can play whatever the vicar likes - or in a secular venue - in which case you can't mention God at all. So you can't play religious music, or even music which obliquely references religion, in a secular wedding venue. Not during the wedding, anyway. At least, that was true back in 2009. Didn't prove a massive inconvenience for me, to be honest, but a minor quirk of the system.
...The word “pogrom”…entered the international lexicon in the 1880s. By the early 1920s, it had become so familiar that a champion racehorse in Britain was named Pogrom; it won the 1922 Epsom Oaks and the Coronation Stakes....
They had got substantially underway in the Russian empire, again, in the 1880's and 1890's, after some of the anti-Tsarists were found to be Jewish. The Tsarist anti-semitic tradition was so strong that even Hitler himself supposedly experienced a decisive influence from some of the White Russians he met in Vienna.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Is that some sort of joke, as I'm afraid I don't get it. You certainly couldn't play pop songs in any church worth it's salt.
Not a joke, but perhaps I explained it badly. You either have to get married in a church - in which case you can play whatever the vicar likes - or in a secular venue - in which case you can't mention God at all. So you can't play religious music, or even music which obliquely references religion, in a secular wedding venue. Not during the wedding, anyway. At least, that was true back in 2009. Didn't prove a massive inconvenience for me, to be honest, but a minor quirk of the system.
Still struggling to believe that certain pop songs with zero religious value are banned from civil ceremonies. Feels far more likely your registrar was just sick of hearing it.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
As a society leaves religion behind it does so gradually, and the last religious touchpoints for many in England are weddings and carol services (even I sometimes choose to go to carol services some years).
My parents-in-law used to go to Mass every week. There was a period when the aim would be to be a bit too late, and so they'd have to listen in to Mass from the vestibule (where they could also gossip). This was quite a popular option. Now they've stopped going altogether, except for the annual Mass for the departed matriarch of the family.
My wife went through all the childhood stages - first communion, confirmation (possibly others, I don't know) but she was happy not to have a Catholic wedding. Her brothers have all gone through with the rigmarole of the pre-marriage course, and our nephew and niece have been christened, but none of them attend Mass.
Mostly people don't tend to switch dramatically from religious to not (though my devoutly atheist Dad is an exception). Religious observance simply fades away.
Boris Johnson has just done a TV pool interview - out soon
Questions on whether the vaccine rollout will be fast enough, whether people should change behaviour because of the new variant, Moderna boss comments and why he hasn’t yet personally had the booster
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Which is a massive prejudice against us non-denominational theists. My wife and I wanted to have some divine cited in our wedding without clouding it with nonsense about three gods in one.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Well, over the years, he has indulged in such stupid irrelevancies as cross-cultural relations, the environment and housing.
And made some people very angry because he wrote letters to ministers asking about the same.
If he manages to wind up Tories I might become a fan of the Rothesays.
Do you realise (or care) how pretentious you sound using his Scottish title?
I have been into three shops, including Pret, this morning, and nobody was wearing masks.
Mask fatigue? Secret Reform UK supporters? Nobody got the message?
As above though, I think the fear on Omicron might be overdone. What very little evidence we have suggests that while vaccines are less effective against it, it is not more likely to send you to hospital and it may even be more mild than Delta.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Is that some sort of joke, as I'm afraid I don't get it. You certainly couldn't play pop songs in any church worth it's salt.
Not a joke, but perhaps I explained it badly. You either have to get married in a church - in which case you can play whatever the vicar likes - or in a secular venue - in which case you can't mention God at all. So you can't play religious music, or even music which obliquely references religion, in a secular wedding venue. Not during the wedding, anyway. At least, that was true back in 2009. Didn't prove a massive inconvenience for me, to be honest, but a minor quirk of the system.
Still struggling to believe that certain pop songs with zero religious value are banned from civil ceremonies. Feels far more likely your registrar was just sick of hearing it.
We were told the same when we registered. An example used with us (not that we wanted it anyway) was that you couldn't have Robbie Williams Angels.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Is that some sort of joke, as I'm afraid I don't get it. You certainly couldn't play pop songs in any church worth it's salt.
Not a joke, but perhaps I explained it badly. You either have to get married in a church - in which case you can play whatever the vicar likes - or in a secular venue - in which case you can't mention God at all. So you can't play religious music, or even music which obliquely references religion, in a secular wedding venue. Not during the wedding, anyway. At least, that was true back in 2009. Didn't prove a massive inconvenience for me, to be honest, but a minor quirk of the system.
Still struggling to believe that certain pop songs with zero religious value are banned from civil ceremonies. Feels far more likely your registrar was just sick of hearing it.
The only reason for the rule in general would be to try and protect CoE priviliges (and they need all the help they can get to keep struggling on), so the idea they need Beach Boys songs protected as part of their patrimony is a little eccentric.
My prediction is we will all get it, but it will be pretty much harmless unless you’re un-vaxxed.
A special booster will be available in about 6 months.
Yes, I think that was essentially the OP's point – succinctly put by you.
I am haunted at times like this by what the lung consultant told me a few years back - "it's essential you avoid any more lung infections".
I really do not want to catch this. Even flu or bronchitis causes my lungs further damage, damage which cannot be repaired.
So I am glad I've been triply vaccinated. As is my husband. I'm urging my children to get the 3rd jab as soon as possible. And I'm resigning myself to a more constrained life than I had hoped for even a few weeks back for the immediate future, until we know more.
Fortunately I can use the time to make plans for the garden and other stuff. And I can generally cope with solitariness. But I can't say it fills me with joy and it can get bloody hard at times. If this new variant means we have to go through the last 2 years all over again, I'm not at all sure I will be able to cope with that, to be perfectly honest.
Sensible to take precautions until more is known, but I wouldn't abandon hope. Even is it turns out fairly nasty, I seriously doubt we're looking at a repeat of the last two years - you'd quite possibly get a tweaked vaccine targeting the new variant within six months. And it's possible that the triple vaccine regime that you've already had reduces this to a mild upper respiratory tract infection.
We'll know a lot more about it, either way, before the end of the year.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Is that some sort of joke, as I'm afraid I don't get it. You certainly couldn't play pop songs in any church worth it's salt.
Not a joke, but perhaps I explained it badly. You either have to get married in a church - in which case you can play whatever the vicar likes - or in a secular venue - in which case you can't mention God at all. So you can't play religious music, or even music which obliquely references religion, in a secular wedding venue. Not during the wedding, anyway. At least, that was true back in 2009. Didn't prove a massive inconvenience for me, to be honest, but a minor quirk of the system.
Still struggling to believe that certain pop songs with zero religious value are banned from civil ceremonies. Feels far more likely your registrar was just sick of hearing it.
We were told the same when we registered. An example used with us (not that we wanted it anyway) was that you couldn't have Robbie Williams Angels.
Ha, what jobsworths. More or less confirmation that as well as not being too bright, the civil servants involved know nothing about religion either.
Just had a look at UC stats since January 2020. Across GB the caseload has roughly doubled (108%) to October 2021.
London 147%, North East England only 75%.
I'd suggest the £20 cut to UC will have hit the south far harder than elsewhere due to the number of people newly claiming UC down there, and the London-based media hasn't picked up on this difference.
I think Tees valley (etc) will remain Tory at the next election based on this and other news like the plant at Sunderland.
Nissan in Sunderland won't generate that many jobs at all (let alone in the Tees Valley). And if you are concerned about that sort of work I would pay a lot more attention to Hitachi whose order book is currently bare for 2023.
For Tees Valley pay more attention to chemicals (see BP's announcement yesterday) and what work comes from the Freeport.
As for Tees Valley seats the ones likely to be lost is Redcar and (to a less extent) Hartlepool as they really aren't see much investment relative to elsewhere.
The etc was to represent various red wall seats.
My point is that announcements may not equal more jobs at the end of the day.
Nissan Sunderland doesn't need to create jobs as such. I just needs to survive.
It has become an iconic fortress in the Brexit war, the last redoubt to be defended at all costs. The Stalingrad, or Verdun, of Brexit. Legend has it that if the ravens/barbary apes ever leave the Sunderland plant, Brexit will fall.
Quite possibly. Are any of the events of the last five years incompatible with "UKG wants the hardest Brexit that doesn't cause Nissan to close its Sunderland plant"? (So no No Deal for example).
And if that is the General Theory of Brexit, what happens next?
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Is that some sort of joke, as I'm afraid I don't get it. You certainly couldn't play pop songs in any church worth it's salt.
Not a joke, but perhaps I explained it badly. You either have to get married in a church - in which case you can play whatever the vicar likes - or in a secular venue - in which case you can't mention God at all. So you can't play religious music, or even music which obliquely references religion, in a secular wedding venue. Not during the wedding, anyway. At least, that was true back in 2009. Didn't prove a massive inconvenience for me, to be honest, but a minor quirk of the system.
Still struggling to believe that certain pop songs with zero religious value are banned from civil ceremonies. Feels far more likely your registrar was just sick of hearing it.
You seem rather easily distinguishable from a ray of sunshine this morning
"Popular classical choices are mainly from the Baroque period of music and include the Canon by Pachelbel, movements from Handel’s Water Music and Bach’s Orchestral Suite No 3. Under the letter of the law, Bach’s Wedding Cantata (Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten” BWV 202) and Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring (from Cantata No. 147, “Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben,” BWV 147), are not permitted. Ave Maria, whether by Gounod or Schubert or another composer, is a definite no-no.
Registrars would allow the following recent hits: A Thousand Years (Christina Perri), the Glasgow Love Theme (from Love Actually) and Marry You (Bruno Mars). You should enquire beforehand regarding the following: Angels (Robbie Williams), God Only Knows (Beach Boys), Angels Cry (Mariah Carey).
If you are getting married at Christmas, steer clear of traditional Christmas carols (or at least enquire first)."
PB advice please: Could someone explain to me what "necessary socialising" is?
Y/N
A) Going to round to girlfriend's place Board games night with 8 friends C) Christmas party with only 4 colleagues D) Hogmanay party with 12 friends E) Hillwalking with 5 friends
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Is that some sort of joke, as I'm afraid I don't get it. You certainly couldn't play pop songs in any church worth it's salt.
Not a joke, but perhaps I explained it badly. You either have to get married in a church - in which case you can play whatever the vicar likes - or in a secular venue - in which case you can't mention God at all. So you can't play religious music, or even music which obliquely references religion, in a secular wedding venue. Not during the wedding, anyway. At least, that was true back in 2009. Didn't prove a massive inconvenience for me, to be honest, but a minor quirk of the system.
Still struggling to believe that certain pop songs with zero religious value are banned from civil ceremonies. Feels far more likely your registrar was just sick of hearing it.
We were told the same when we registered. An example used with us (not that we wanted it anyway) was that you couldn't have Robbie Williams Angels.
Wonder if anyone requests that? "I'm loving Angels instead"?
Still, isn't 'Every Breath You Take' a reasonably popular first dance song too?
Carrie gets binned off/scarpers. More financial shenanigans. N.O.M. at next GE. Javid launches a leadership bid that fails Hancock back in the cabinet as NI Secretary as punishment Shapps starts wearing a poppy in July Mad Nad will be back on the backbenches Sunak finally grows into those size 3 Crocs he's been keeping
If you truly wished him ill, you'd be going for a majority of four, and Carrie still calling the shots.
Majority of 12… let him have hope… for a while… and then a growing sense of despair as reality dawns
Whimsical cruelty- I like it.
I wonder how low the majority would have to go before a GE win was more of a punishment than a prize? John Major made a majority of 21 more-or-less work for five years (albeit it was ugly at times and the cost was massive in 1997), but he was a subtler operator than BoJo.
Whimsical cruelty would be a Conservative minority but with DUP confidence and supply, a majority of one.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Is that some sort of joke, as I'm afraid I don't get it. You certainly couldn't play pop songs in any church worth it's salt.
Not a joke, but perhaps I explained it badly. You either have to get married in a church - in which case you can play whatever the vicar likes - or in a secular venue - in which case you can't mention God at all. So you can't play religious music, or even music which obliquely references religion, in a secular wedding venue. Not during the wedding, anyway. At least, that was true back in 2009. Didn't prove a massive inconvenience for me, to be honest, but a minor quirk of the system.
Still struggling to believe that certain pop songs with zero religious value are banned from civil ceremonies. Feels far more likely your registrar was just sick of hearing it.
You seem rather easily distinguishable from a ray of sunshine this morning
"Popular classical choices are mainly from the Baroque period of music and include the Canon by Pachelbel, movements from Handel’s Water Music and Bach’s Orchestral Suite No 3. Under the letter of the law, Bach’s Wedding Cantata (Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten” BWV 202) and Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring (from Cantata No. 147, “Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben,” BWV 147), are not permitted. Ave Maria, whether by Gounod or Schubert or another composer, is a definite no-no.
Registrars would allow the following recent hits: A Thousand Years (Christina Perri), the Glasgow Love Theme (from Love Actually) and Marry You (Bruno Mars). You should enquire beforehand regarding the following: Angels (Robbie Williams), God Only Knows (Beach Boys), Angels Cry (Mariah Carey).
If you are getting married at Christmas, steer clear of traditional Christmas carols (or at least enquire first)."
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
I didn't feel comfortable about it but my wife was keen to have a religious element to the marriage and her mother was super keen. I ultimately went along with it because I didn't care that much and it was making others happy. For me we were making promises to each other in front of our families and friends. So far so good.
If one partner is religious, then fair enough. I just cannot grasp the motivation for irreligious couples to have a religious wedding – there are hundreds of beautiful venues for atheist weddings.
Interestingly, the atheism of non-religious weddings is rather rigorously enforced by the state. You either have to explicitly have God in your wedding - i.e. in a church - or leave him out entirely. So, for example, you can't play God Only Knows, by the Beach Boys - one of the finest love songs ever - at a non-religious wedding. Couldn't in my day, anyway.
Is that some sort of joke, as I'm afraid I don't get it. You certainly couldn't play pop songs in any church worth it's salt.
Not a joke, but perhaps I explained it badly. You either have to get married in a church - in which case you can play whatever the vicar likes - or in a secular venue - in which case you can't mention God at all. So you can't play religious music, or even music which obliquely references religion, in a secular wedding venue. Not during the wedding, anyway. At least, that was true back in 2009. Didn't prove a massive inconvenience for me, to be honest, but a minor quirk of the system.
Still struggling to believe that certain pop songs with zero religious value are banned from civil ceremonies. Feels far more likely your registrar was just sick of hearing it.
We were told the same when we registered. An example used with us (not that we wanted it anyway) was that you couldn't have Robbie Williams Angels.
Ha, what jobsworths. More or less confirmation that as well as not being too bright, the civil servants involved know nothing about religion either.
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
I wouldn't know and don't care.
But it reeks of the snobbishness which considers Harold Pinter more important than Coronation Street.
Many of the things now regarded as cultural exports from the Beatles to football were looked down on not long ago.
And it still happens - Iron Maiden have been a huge UK cultural export for decades but you'll struggle to find references to them in the media's cultural sections.
And if you go back to Shakespeare wasn't he sneered at for having 'little Latin and no Greek' ? Or you might say for not having a broad interest in culture.
Nadine doesn’t need to be Alan Yentob. But she could start by not calling journalists “fuckwits” on Twitter.
She also appears - judging by her comments about Ch 4 - to not have the slightest clue what she’s doing.
Exaggeration?
I think she called one journo - James O'Brien - a "public school fuckwit", which seems fair enough and very defensible for accuracy in the knockabout commentary stakes.
That might be your level for ministerial gravitas, it’s not mine.
Nadine Dorries is an incompetent fool and way out of depth as a government minister. Talking like that to members of the media is inappropriate for someone of her position, but I think on this occasion an exception can be made given just how much a fuckwit James O'Brien is. He just reeks of twattishness. Can you imagine having to sit in a pub with him for more than an hour?
PB advice please: Could someone explain to me what "necessary socialising" is?
Y/N
A) Going to round to girlfriend's place Board games night with 8 friends C) Christmas party with only 4 colleagues D) Hogmanay party with 12 friends E) Hillwalking with 5 friends
All of the above, man is a social animal. Stupid thing to say.
Comments
And some of the names are so obscure it is hard to believe even members have ever heard of them, or truly know anything about them.
For Tees Valley pay more attention to chemicals (see BP's announcement yesterday) and what work comes from the Freeport.
As for Tees Valley seats the ones likely to be lost is Redcar and (to a less extent) Hartlepool as they really aren't see much investment relative to elsewhere.
In which case, the case numbers are pointless.
The wastewater sampling would produce something closer to reality.
The Sussexes too are irrelevant. But they are milking their royal status for money with TV companies.
None of them, frankly, are behaving well. I am a little tired of the assumption that in the family only Andrew has behaved badly, that's all
As for Dorries, it is the fact that she appears to be an ignorant and ineffective Minister which is my problem - not that she writes best-selling novels. I am a fan of what some will call low brow novels and think Pinter is a bit overrated, frankly. A very long period of silence is the best response to him.
But the arts and culture, sport and media are really important sectors of our national life and deserve a first rate Minister.
Moreover current societal issues in the US have a lot to do with their failure to address their issues proactively
This is not to suggest, of course, that the British involvement in the slave trade was anything but abhorrent.
I can remember when, on OB, ConHome polls were ranked as lower than web polls conducted by the Daily Mirror/Mail
I guess any poll that tells you what you want to hear is gold standard....
Dorries is no Andre Malraux, that’s for sure.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1465643655922913284?s=20
I do feel wistful about it though. I liked certain aspects of how the party changed after 2015, in particular how we stopped being scared to propose big transformational changes to the benefit of those without privilege and the consternation of those with a vested interest in retaining theirs. The only thing worse than losing to the Tories is to stand on a timid platform and still lose to the Tories. 2015 was worse for me than 2019 was and 2017 was fabulous. I hope another 2015 is not where we’re heading. That would be just too sad. It would also mean years more of Boris Johnson and that’s beyond sad.
Another 1987 or 1992 would be grim too imo. I’ve no interest in Starmer being Kinnock - rolling the pitch for Streeting as Blair to end 18 years of Tory rule in 2028 - his mission has to be replacing Johnson as PM at the next election. The bloke has to go. I rank this above being radical so who cares, quite frankly, about whether I feel ‘wistful’ about the quenching of the socialist flame? I certainly don’t. I don’t give a toss that I’m feeling wistful. The only question of importance is does this reshuffle improve the quality of the Labour front bench and therefore the chances of ‘taxi for Johnson’ come the election? I think it does. So I’m happy. Go Keir.
Unless I've missed something, 12 out of 12 Apostles are Jewish.
As was, for example, the Rt Rev High Montefiore, former CofE Bishop of Birmingham in the 1980s.
I remember getting tied up in the David Jenkins debates. Quite a lot of fun.
My prediction is we will all get it, but it will be pretty much harmless unless you’re un-vaxxed.
A special booster will be available in about 6 months.
I am not saying this is the correct analysis, merely outlining the point that was being made (which was nothing to with peaks in cases whatsoever).
I got married in a chapel because my wife wanted it and St Mary Undercroft in the Commons is such a lovely place. God can sue me if he wants to.
Also the chippie himself.
My point was that it showed progress in the liberalisation of Christianity in the UK
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion to Jewish Bishops.....
Dubious people were using the royals to launder their reputation.
Charles should have known - or been advised - better.
It probably doesn't happen often. But it certainly happens occasionally. Which is probably enough to justify it.
Makes no odds to me: I'm an atheist who married in a secular venue and who is vaguely uncomfortable in a church.
@JohnRentoul
·
40m
Keir Starmer finally has a shadow cabinet that looks like a plausible alternative government
@indypremium
From Guardian 2010 -
"In a little more than a year he donated almost £2.8m, making him the Tories' largest benefactor. Exactly why a man who had not shown much interest in the party for at least a decade became an enthusiastic supporter remains a mystery.
He started with a sum of £1m in June last year, and continued to give as the general election drew nearer. By June this year, Cameron had appointed him to be his party treasurer. Rowland pronounced it a "tremendous honour"."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/aug/20/david-rowland-controversy-conservatives
Obviously there are also parts of America where a little more panicking might be sensible.
Now, that’s more like it. When did all this good stuff start happening?
Alas, this version of the UK Government exists entirely in the fevered imaginings of Scottish nationalists, which is why it got such an airing in Sturgeon’s speech.
https://stephendaisley.substack.com/p/nicola-sturgeons-imaginary-tories
I really do not want to catch this. Even flu or bronchitis causes my lungs further damage, damage which cannot be repaired.
So I am glad I've been triply vaccinated. As is my husband. I'm urging my children to get the 3rd jab as soon as possible. And I'm resigning myself to a more constrained life than I had hoped for even a few weeks back for the immediate future, until we know more.
Fortunately I can use the time to make plans for the garden and other stuff. And I can generally cope with solitariness. But I can't say it fills me with joy and it can get bloody hard at times. If this new variant means we have to go through the last 2 years all over again, I'm not at all sure I will be able to cope with that, to be perfectly honest.
If Andrew had stepped down from royal duties in order to spend more time with Monte Carlo bankers and Epstein then that would have been his prerogative, but he didn't.
If he wanted to be a private individual he could have been, but instead as a serving British royal he was seeking to exploit royal relations with Prince Albert to curry favour for businessmen he had a financial vested interest in.
Stepping down and dealing with TV isn't the problem, the problem is not stepping down first.
It has become an iconic fortress in the Brexit war, the last redoubt to be defended at all costs. The Stalingrad, or Verdun, of Brexit. Legend has it that if the ravens/barbary apes ever leave the Sunderland plant, Brexit will fall.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Midst-Civilized-Europe-1918-1921-Holocaust/dp/1509867449/
...The word “pogrom”…entered the international lexicon in the 1880s. By the early 1920s, it had become so familiar that a champion racehorse in Britain was named Pogrom; it won the 1922 Epsom Oaks and the Coronation Stakes....
I wonder how low the majority would have to go before a GE win was more of a punishment than a prize? John Major made a majority of 21 more-or-less work for five years (albeit it was ugly at times and the cost was massive in 1997), but he was a subtler operator than BoJo.
"What do you think about Angela Rayner not appearing to know about the reshuffle?"
"I've been around for lots of reshuffles. The gaffer picks the team and that's that"
You either have to get married in a church - in which case you can play whatever the vicar likes - or in a secular venue - in which case you can't mention God at all. So you can't play religious music, or even music which obliquely references religion, in a secular wedding venue. Not during the wedding, anyway. At least, that was true back in 2009. Didn't prove a massive inconvenience for me, to be honest, but a minor quirk of the system.
My parents-in-law used to go to Mass every week. There was a period when the aim would be to be a bit too late, and so they'd have to listen in to Mass from the vestibule (where they could also gossip). This was quite a popular option. Now they've stopped going altogether, except for the annual Mass for the departed matriarch of the family.
My wife went through all the childhood stages - first communion, confirmation (possibly others, I don't know) but she was happy not to have a Catholic wedding. Her brothers have all gone through with the rigmarole of the pre-marriage course, and our nephew and niece have been christened, but none of them attend Mass.
Mostly people don't tend to switch dramatically from religious to not (though my devoutly atheist Dad is an exception). Religious observance simply fades away.
Questions on whether the vaccine rollout will be fast enough, whether people should change behaviour because of the new variant, Moderna boss comments and why he hasn’t yet personally had the booster
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1465653500201811970?s=20
Mask fatigue?
Secret Reform UK supporters?
Nobody got the message?
As above though, I think the fear on Omicron might be overdone. What very little evidence we have suggests that while vaccines are less effective against it, it is not more likely to send you to hospital and it may even be more mild than Delta.
It is prudent to be cautious until we know more.
Even is it turns out fairly nasty, I seriously doubt we're looking at a repeat of the last two years - you'd quite possibly get a tweaked vaccine targeting the new variant within six months.
And it's possible that the triple vaccine regime that you've already had reduces this to a mild upper respiratory tract infection.
We'll know a lot more about it, either way, before the end of the year.
Thatcher (Sep 81): -37
Major (Apr 93): -37
Blair (Sep 99): +24
Brown (Nov 09): -25
Cameron (Oct 12): -29
May (Dec 18): -22
JOHNSON (Nov 21): -27
Average score for a PM since 1979 = -13
2 points stand out here:
1) Johnson's ratings much of a muchness vs most others. Including a Cameron that goes on to win in 2015 and a Brown that loses in 2010.
2) Events, dear boy etc. Thatcher ratings surged to +23 in Jun 82 post Falklands.
Nothing set in stone.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1465654200512167938?s=20
Average PM score excluding Blair: -29
Laura K, though. 80% of the posters on here know more about politics than she does.
And if that is the General Theory of Brexit, what happens next?
"Popular classical choices are mainly from the Baroque period of music and include the Canon by Pachelbel, movements from Handel’s Water Music and Bach’s Orchestral Suite No 3. Under the letter of the law, Bach’s Wedding Cantata (Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten” BWV 202) and Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring (from Cantata No. 147, “Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben,” BWV 147), are not permitted. Ave Maria, whether by Gounod or Schubert or another composer, is a definite no-no.
Registrars would allow the following recent hits: A Thousand Years (Christina Perri), the Glasgow Love Theme (from Love Actually) and Marry You (Bruno Mars). You should enquire beforehand regarding the following: Angels (Robbie Williams), God Only Knows (Beach Boys), Angels Cry (Mariah Carey).
If you are getting married at Christmas, steer clear of traditional Christmas carols (or at least enquire first)."
https://www.celebratewithmusic.co.uk/wedding-ceremony-music/
And dozens of other sources
Y/N
A) Going to round to girlfriend's place
C) Christmas party with only 4 colleagues
D) Hogmanay party with 12 friends
E) Hillwalking with 5 friends
Still, isn't 'Every Breath You Take' a reasonably popular first dance song too?
Any guidance on Bring Your Daughter To The Slaughter?
If not, there's a good tax avoidance reason.
https://twitter.com/Jim_Edwards/status/1465657144380952588